Hassan v Hume

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HASSAN v HUME & ANOR [2003] FMCA 476

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – HUMAN RIGHTS – Racial discrimination – whether any basis of claim of victimisation – whether any breach of relevant legislation.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal – application fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action to support a claim of unlawful discrimination.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986, s.46PO(3)
Racial Discrimination Act 1975, ss.17, 27
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r 13.10
Federal Court Rules, O 62

DO v University of New South Wales (2003) NSWADT AP 9
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Proprietary Limited (1981) 147 CLR 589
State Bank of New South Wales v Stenhouse (1997) ATR 81-423
Haines v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1995) 43 NSWLR 404
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner of Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125
Dey v Victorian Railways Commission (1949) 78 CLR 62

Applicant: GHALI HASSAN

First Respondent: PROFESSOR ROY HUME

Second Respondent: PROFESSOR JAMES McWHA

File No: WZ 40 of 2003

Delivered on: 28 November 2003

Delivered at: Melbourne

Hearing Date: No hearing pursuant to Rule 15.03 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Date of Last Submission: 6 July 2003

Judgment of: McInnis FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In person

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms C Kirby of the University of New South Wales

Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Ms P Keane

Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Norman Waterhouse

ORDERS

1. The Application filed 12 March 2003 be dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the Respondents costs pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules to be taxed in default of agreement pursuant to Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PERTH

WZ 40 of 2003

GHALI HASSAN

Applicant

And

PROFESSOR ROY HUME

First Respondent

And

PROFESSOR JAMES McWHA

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. By an Application filed on 12 March 2003 Ghali Hassan (the Applicant) pursues a claim which had been the subject of a Notice of Termination by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (the Commission) on 13 February 2003.

2. In the Notice of Termination it is noted that the Commission has attached the reasons for its decision to terminate the Claim and provided a copy of the original complaint.

3. The complaint before the Commission had been against the University of New South Wales (the UNSW) and the University of Adelaide (the UA) alleging victimisation under the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (the RDA).  In the summary of complaint the Commission refers to the complaint form dated 10 September 2002 and states that the Applicant’s “PhD enrolment and Optometry scholarship were terminated by the UNSW on 23 April 2002 and that he claimed that UNSW’s decision constitutes an act of victimisation under the RDA because it was made on the basis that he had previously lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission under the RDA against the UA in 1997.  The Applicant also claims that the…